The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

[Tangible]

LUTHERAN WRITER: The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes

CPH is planning to release a new version of the Apocrypha similar in form and format to The Lutheran Study Bible some time in 2012.

We believe this edition of the Apocrypha will fill an important gap in our biblical studies resources and help people better understand what Lutherans teach about the Word of God. As I noted on p. 1426 of The Lutheran Study Bible, "Sound goals that Lutherans may hope to reach during their lifetime include . . . Reading through the entire Holy Bible and the Apocrypha." We are preparing this edition for just such a purpose. I look forward to sharing this new resource with you.

 

[BoC]

"We believe this edition of the Apocrypha will fill an important gap in our biblical studies resources and help people better understand what Lutherans teach about the Word of God."

?????

 

[QuiltAngel]

I find it interesting.

We were concerned that suddenly reintroducing the Apocrypha would confuse and possible even offend people who did not know about their inclusion and use in the Lutheran tradition. Therefore, we decided to include more pages in The Lutheran Study Bible about “The Time between the Testaments and The Apocrypha” (pp. 1551–1567) so that English speaking Lutherans could rediscover this aspect of their heritage and its value for biblical study and devotion. Our edition will have a similar design and appearance to The Lutheran Study Bible. It will be a volume in The Essential Lutheran Library.

Wonder if anyone on here can fill us in more on the Lutheran use of the Apocrypha in the past.

 

[filosofer]

I find it interesting.



Wonder if anyone on here can fill us in more on the Lutheran use of the Apocrypha in the past.

Well, the BoC had no problem referring to and quoting the Apocrypha.

Luther highly praised it, but not on the level with the Scriptures. And if you read Wisdom and Sirach are in line with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes In terms of style.

 

[Tangible]

Wonder if anyone on here can fill us in more on the Lutheran use of the Apocrypha in the past.

Found this: http://www.christianforums.com/t1178033/

The gist of what I have consistently found regarding Luther anyway, is that he regarded them as valuable for reading and study, though not to be considered as inspired scripture.

I would think that they are on the same level as Christian devotional and teaching books - correct when they agree with God's Word, and incorrect where they do not.

From Luther's introduction to the book of Tobit:

"What was said about the book of Judith may also be said about this book of Tobit. If the events really happened, then it is fine and holy history. But if they are all made up, then it is indeed a truly beautiful, wholesome, and useful fiction or drama by a gifted poet. . . Tobit shows how things may go badly with a pious peasant . . . there may be much suffering in married life, yet God always graciously helps and finally crowns the outcome with joy . . . Therefore this book is useful and good for us Christians to read. It is the work of a fine Hebrew author who deals not with trivial but important issues, and whose writing and concerns are extraordinarily Christian." (Luther's Works, Vol. 35 pp. 345-347).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, the BoC had no problem referring to and quoting the Apocrypha.

Luther highly praised it, but not on the level with the Scriptures. And if you read Wisdom and Sirach are in line with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes In terms of style.

Indeed. Truth be known, we lost these books for a time when the Church switched from German to English. I have an old German Bible; Luther's translation, with the Apocrypha right in the middle between the Old and New Testaments. When the Church switched to English; the only Scripture readily available was the "Protestants" KJV.

Concordia has published them before in a seperate volume, but not for some time. I welcome this! (I have had to rely on a RC NAB as my Apocryphal reference).

 

[Tangible]

I've never read them before, and I'm especially looking forward to reading them with a 'safety net' of good footnotes and accompanying explanations.

 

[BigNorsk]

I'm not sure exactly which books will be included. Whether the books normally included in the Protestant Apocrypha, or will it follow Luther and throw Esdras in the Elba or will it use all those the ESV chose to translate?

Probably a minor question.

As for the historical usage by Lutherans. The Apocryphal books continued to be read in the churches like was the pattern in the historical church. Right up to the 1970's Lutheran lectionaries had readings from the Apocrypha. I don't think any of the current ones do. It's a practice that has faded since people generally don't have easy access to a good translation of them. Gradually went from a reading, including reading in the weekly, to readings in the daily to having alternate readings to missing. In any case, there is the historic practice of reading them.

Lutherans do still sing some hymns based on the Apocrypha. "Now, Thank We All Our God" is probably the best known and is based on Sirach 50:22-24.

Lutherans historically have not been confused by the ways the word scripture is used or the reading in the churches. While read, they are not the source of doctrine. This actually fits in with how they are used by the Orthodox and actually, though Catholics will disagree, in the Catholic church.

Note that using them for doctrine is not the same as using them to support a doctrine. For example, Tobit tells of using fish entrails to exorcise demons. No group does that. It's not taken as authoritative by anyone.

The big danger is in people who take the Protestant understanding of scripture and then one day accept the Catholic and Orthodox arguments that the Apocryphal books are scripture as correct. If you take the Apocrypha as authoritative scripture, you end up someplace that isn't Lutheran, or Orthodox, or Catholic.

You even see people running to the Ethiopian larger canon and wanting to take them all as authoritative, something that never occurred to the Ethiopians.

Looking forward to the Lutheran Apocrypha.

 

[Kalevalatar]

We are in a similar situation here in Finland: the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books were included in the 1642, 1776, and 1933/38 Finnish Bible translations, but were left out from the latest Finnish 1992 translation due "financial reasons". The translation project coincided with the 1990-1993 global recession, you see. However, the latest Finnish Swedish-language Bible from 1999 does contain the Apocrypha, which kind of places Finnish and Swedish speaking Finns on an unequal footing, no? That won't do, of course, so there's a new Finnish translation project going on, which is most welcome as the pre-war Finnish is already quite unreadable for someone like moi.

During the 19th century when Finland, then a Russian Grand Duchy, was still very poor & backwards and lacking in Bibles, the "English and Foreign Bible Society" came to the Finnish Christians' aid by providing new Bible editions. Part financial reasons, part "theological" reasons, unfortunately, the Apocryphal books were left out from these editions. Consequently, several generations of Lutheran Finns were weaned from the Apocrypha.


For those interested, here is a neat link to the Codex Sinaiticus project, where you can browse the manuscript. On a sidebar it features translations from Tobit, Judith etc. in modern understandable TOEFL-English! And Deutch! And Russian!

 

[SummaScriptura]

Can you tell me if this will be based upon an existing translation of Scripture, or will it be a completely fresh translation and study Bible?

 

[BigNorsk]

It sounds like they are going to use the one that the ESV translators did, makes sense since the ESV is the translation in the Lutheran Study Bible.

I'm not certain exactly which books or portions of books will be included.

 

[filosofer]

Here is an answer from one who is working on it at CPH:

Apocrypha for the Lutheran Study Bible

 

[BoC]

Did Jesus use a quote from the Apocrypha? Other than that I don't see it mentioned in the BoC or the Bible. There are too many other good sources for Bible study to spend time reading a group of books that are questionable.

 

[seajoy]

I've never heard of Lutherans paying a whole lot of mind to the Apocrypha. I'm really surprised at all this attention on those books. I've belonged to both LCMS and WELS and never heard anything about it. I question the need for them if they are not Canon.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here is an answer from one who is working on it at CPH:

Apocrypha for the Lutheran Study Bible

In that case, I will probably pick up a copy. I have the Oxford bare-bones edition with all the same books included, but it would be better to have it with cross-references and notes, provided Lutheran notes are good ones. Just kidding!

Anyway, if they really do include the one that was put out last year by Oxford it will include something not mentioned in the article; it will included the entirety of Greek Esther, not just the additional parts.

Two weeks ago I did a quick read through Greek Esther and I have to say it has the traditional text of the Masoretic O.T. beat hands down on purely esthetic grounds. It has more pathos and drama and pulls you into the emotional lives of the players much better, imo.

 

[BigNorsk]

Did Jesus use a quote from the Apocrypha? Other than that I don't see it mentioned in the BoC or the Bible. There are too many other good sources for Bible study to spend time reading a group of books that are questionable.

Surely you've notice the reference to isn't it Maccabbees in the Book of Concord as "scripture"? Apology XXI

8]

Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1, 12, where an

angel prays: ​

​

O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on 9] Jerusalem? Although concerning

the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in
heaven they pray for the Church in general, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is​

extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees, 15, 14.

As for those other good sources, they are all questionable too. Only authoritative scripture can be absolutely trusted.

But the fact remains the Apocryphal books were part of the ecclesiatical canon of the church, and their use as such is still fitting and proper.

I should add the most famous reference to the Apocrypha in the Book of Concord is the woodcut that Luther used to demonstrate the bearing of false witness, comes from isn't it Sirach? Anyway it has returned in the Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord after a long absence.
​

 

[BigNorsk]

I've never heard of Lutherans paying a whole lot of mind to the Apocrypha. I'm really surprised at all this attention on those books. I've belonged to both LCMS and WELS and never heard anything about it. I question the need for them if they are not Canon.

In actuality they aren't paid a lot of attention to. Places like this forum tend to concentrate comments and discussions about them.

I'm surprised you never heard anything about them. Dropping them entirely is a Geneva Bible innovation hence the opposition to them by many Puritans/Baptist/Reformed.

They have long been a part of the canon read in the churches, just not a part of the authoritative canon. They help us understand the context of what was said and done in the New Testament and as such are certainly a worthwhile study. A lot better than the latest heretical ramblings of self proclaimed prophets that fill Christian bookstores today.

 

[seajoy]

In actuality they aren't paid a lot of attention to. Places like this forum tend to concentrate comments and discussions about them.

I'm surprised you never heard anything about them. Dropping them entirely is a Geneva Bible innovation hence the opposition to them by many Puritans/Baptist/Reformed.

They have long been a part of the canon read in the churches, just not a part of the authoritative canon. They help us understand the context of what was said and done in the New Testament and as such are certainly a worthwhile study. A lot better than the latest heretical ramblings of self proclaimed prophets that fill Christian bookstores today.

Thanks, Marv. I agree with you about the ramblings in many books of today. But I'll just stick with the Bible. Guess I feel more comfortable that way.

 

[Kalevalatar]

In actuality they aren't paid a lot of attention to. Places like this forum tend to concentrate comments and discussions about them.

I'm surprised you never heard anything about them. Dropping them entirely is a Geneva Bible innovation hence the opposition to them by many Puritans/Baptist/Reformed.

They have long been a part of the canon read in the churches, just not a part of the authoritative canon. They help us understand the context of what was said and done in the New Testament and as such are certainly a worthwhile study. A lot better than the latest heretical ramblings of self proclaimed prophets that fill Christian bookstores today.

Indeed. BoC aside, the Luther Bible does contain the Apocrypha. Luther chose to include these texts with the earlier mentioned header: "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read". Nothing more, nothing less.

It's somewhat unfortunate that these books still get to go by the old name "apocrypha". To a less informed reader, it leaves the wrong impression of an occult.

 

[BoC]

Surely you've notice the reference to isn't it Maccabbees in the Book of Concord as "scripture"? Apology XXI

8]

​

​

Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1, 12, where an​

angel prays: ​

​

​

​

​

O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on 9] Jerusalem? Although concerning​

the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in

heaven they pray for the Church in general, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is​

​

​

extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees, 15, 14.​

As for those other good sources, they are all questionable too. Only authoritative scripture can be absolutely trusted.​

But the fact remains the Apocryphal books were part of the ecclesiatical canon of the church, and their use as such is still fitting and proper.​

I should add the most famous reference to the Apocrypha in the Book of Concord is the woodcut that Luther used to demonstrate the bearing of false witness, comes from isn't it Sirach? Anyway it has returned in the Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord after a long absence.​

Indeed. BoC aside, the Luther Bible does contain the Apocrypha. Luther chose to include these texts with the earlier mentioned header: "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read". Nothing more, nothing less.

It's somewhat unfortunate that these books still get to go by the old name "apocrypha". To a less informed reader, it leaves the wrong impression of an occult.

If the apocrapha was mentioned just in passing then the Lutheran chruch fathers had relagated it to its proper place and that it was just a "good read". If you consider one quote in the BOC among hundreds of pages as supportive of the apocrapha then you are falling for the same "schlock" that passes for authoritative theology in the Lutheran church. People ask in another thread why there has been an exodus to the EO and it's just becasue of this nonsense promoted on this thread that "other" sources are beneficial for correct theology or more than just a good read. CPH is notorious for promoting "wrong" theology. Just look at the series on Bonhoeffer sitting on their shelves. I havn't counted the books but there are close to 20 of them.